[sobkas]

> I'm not making a factual claim, what sources can I cite, Plato?

You said that "Neutrality is a prerequisite for discussions". It's factual claim. Do you have a some citation/proof/data that supports your claim? I bet there are plenty papers (or even better, meta-analysis) about discussions.

> It's up to us humans to decide whether discussions are better off taking place within a neutral/biased forum.

First in previous paragraph you stated that every discussion (you didn't specified which ones) needs neutrality and now you state that discussion can take place within biased forum and we should decide which type of discussion we value more aka. one with biased or unbiased forum? Maybe start with deciding which one this two statements is true.

Also neutrality is hard or even impossible.

[freemanon]

I'm not interested to researching into the research of discussions. You're free to disagree if you think discussions aren't best done within a neutral forum, but I expect most people to have the common sense of seeing the benefit of it.

Which question is a useful opener for a discussion:

- "How can we help Africa end starvation?" vs - "Should we send more aid to these ungrateful African countries who have been cozying up to China instead? (Obviously not)".

It should be obvious which is a discussion and which is merely a statement veiled as a rhetorical question. But hey maybe most people can't tell and that's why Fox news still has so many viewers.